VAR

[Sanguine]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40474969

That's 'video-assistant referee' - which is getting some flak after further trials at the Confederations Cup which saw the referee review video evidence of what appeared a pretty blatant elbow, only to give the player a yellow, not red, card.

In principle I like the use of technology, but for me this is only going to work if we see a culture change - amongst acceptance by fans and players and coaches or whatever decision the referee ultimately makes, and amongst referees that the technology is there to be used, and should be within certain protocols.

We saw two great examples in the Lions (rugby) Test at the weekend.
Sonny Bill Williams was red carded after a review showed that he had 'tackled' Antony Watson's head with his shoulder. it was difficult to show absolute intent, but it was certainly reckless. It was also clear that the referee and his assistants didn't necessarily agree but the decision was made and everyone respected it.

Later in the match, the video ref brought Vunipola's late challenge on Barrett, that he had missed, to the referee's attention, and he reviewed and showed a yellow card.

In short - as it stands there isn't enough respect in football for officialdom, and until there is, I can't see this system working.

[handbags_harris]

I absolutely agree we need to extract a culture shift, but my emphasis would not be on the respect angle as if the correct decisions are made with all of the assistance, then respect can only increase. What I feel we need to move away from is the traditionalist view, the "why meddle with it, it'll destroy the game, we'll have nothing to talk about" which in my view is, quite frankly, bollocks, particularly the latter element. What we need to do is embrace the tools available to us in order to improve the decision making, and if that means a slight shift away from what we now take for granted then so be it, one part of which is the on-field referee has complete authority over everything that happens on the field. I think the VAR can work, but the VAR must be given the authority in certain specific circumstances to indicate to the on-field referee that he should either review if an incident is not clear cut, or state a clear course of action if it is. Right now, all of the emphasis is placed on the referee's shoulders and I'd personally like to have that reduced a bit, but only really for "game-changing circumstances", for example (not exhaustive):-

1) potential infringement in the build up to a goal where, if play is allowed to carry on, the subsequent play leads to a goal
2) offside
3) penalty or not

The VAR will have the angles to be able to make the best judgement and decision there and then whether to either review with the referee and make a decision by consensus, or indicate appropriate course of action in clear cut cases. I recognise, however, many would perceive this as a backward step, but then many felt the backpass law was a backward step.

I also think that communication must be opened up, I have never understood why referee communication in football is so secretive. Referees should be judged as much as players on what they say as much as they do, and it would also bring instant understanding of a referee's logic to a scenario. Right now, it is usually educated guesswork.

Long and short of this is that football is currently an imperfect game, and in order to iron out the imperfections everyone should embrace change if it improves decision making.

[Sanguine]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/42717093

So Leicester's Ineacho scores the first goal in English football awarded by VAR, after his effort was initially ruled offside. The 'delay' was 67 seconds from when the ball hit the net, which seems nothing given time is lost to celebrations anyway.

For me, this is a good advancement for the game.

[Hendo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/42717093

So Leicester's Ineacho scores the first goal in English football awarded by VAR, after his effort was initially ruled offside. The 'delay' was 67 seconds from when the ball hit the net, which seems nothing given time is lost to celebrations anyway.

For me, this is a good advancement for the game.

Agreed, although I am not sure how I feel about it being used in a competition where not every team can benefit from it. I understand they have to trial it somehow but it just seems to me a tad unfair that the luck of a draw will decide as to whether it gets used in your game or not.

[John Smith]

Before we had it, I was all in favour. Now we have it, it's a no. It's too much hassle for not a big enough, or conclusive advantage. Yes, referees get decisions wrong but it's part and parcel of the game. None of the decisions its used for are black and white, unlike goaline technology, and the delay - albeit not long in duration - kills the buzz and atmosphere. Watching the games the other week in the Carabao Cup with it where we had chanting of "VAR, VAR!!" has turned this into something like NFL - something I'd never want to see.

The real issue is the standard of officiating outside the Premier League. We should be trying to improve the system in place rather than throw technology at it.

[Winston Biscuit]

150 less yellow cards dished out in Italy now than at this time last season. Being said that there has been a behavioural change in Serie A - less fouling, less diving, less arguing with the ref.

[Snowflake Royal]

A good place to start in a cultural change would be:
a) Teaching managers and players the laws - it's abundantly clear many don't actually know them well.
b) Doing the same for pundits

Half of the issues with fans negativity towards officials and dislike of technological officiating solutions is just plain ignorance of the laws and what the technology can do, and it's all fed by ignorant pundits who are the only source of football information for the 'never been to a game' SKY followers that make up a big slice of 'fans'.

[tmesis]

A good place to start in a cultural change would be:
a) Teaching managers and players the laws - it's abundantly clear many don't actually know them well.
b) Doing the same for pundits

Half of the issues with fans negativity towards officials and dislike of technological officiating solutions is just plain ignorance of the laws and what the technology can do, and it's all fed by ignorant pundits who are the only source of football information for the 'never been to a game' SKY followers that make up a big slice of 'fans'.

+1

It drives me nuts that so many ex-pros...

a) don't know the rules of the game
b) think referees should award decisions based on what the pundit thinks the rules ought to be, rather than what they actually are.

[Snowflake Royal]

A good place to start in a cultural change would be:
a) Teaching managers and players the laws - it's abundantly clear many don't actually know them well.
b) Doing the same for pundits

Half of the issues with fans negativity towards officials and dislike of technological officiating solutions is just plain ignorance of the laws and what the technology can do, and it's all fed by ignorant pundits who are the only source of football information for the 'never been to a game' SKY followers that make up a big slice of 'fans'.

+1

It drives me nuts that so many ex-pros...

a) don't know the rules of the game
b) think referees should award decisions based on what the pundit thinks the rules ought to be, rather than what they actually are.

Handball being the most frequent glaringly obvious one.

[Ascotexgunner]

Its a no from me. Never like anything that stops the flow of the game. I am in favour of more retrospective decisions after the game such as bans and extra yellow cards\fines for diving. I can see some real controversy happening if decisions are inconclusive or missed. Back to square 1.

[BR0B0T]

Also, an acceptance that VAR isn't going to be 100% accurate

decide what the level of improvement ('correct' decisions) makes up for the negatives

and whilst I'm at it, Alan Shearer is as fick as fcuk!

[Snowflake Royal]

Also, an acceptance that VAR isn't going to be 100% accurate

decide what the level of improvement ('correct' decisions) makes up for the negatives

and whilst I'm at it, Alan Shearer is as fick as fcuk!

Oh yeah, there were some former player pundit berks pointing to VAR not proving conclusive on, Murray's goal being handball or not, of course not everything will be conclusive you morons, you don't have a perfect 3D scan of the entire incident from multiple angles you can run through a computer AI. Even if it was, one of you muppets would still claim it was wrong because you don't know the laws. It's a bloody improvement though isn't it.

[Winston Biscuit]

I am generally not in favour of it as I prefer whatever helps the game to keep flowing as much as possible, I am keeping in mind though that modern football already doesn't flow anywhere near as much as it used to anyway, and we are only at a starting point with VAR, I assume it will improve over time.

[paultheroyal]

Alan Shearer spot on last night. VAR should only be used for matter of fact. Ball in and out of play. Inside box, outside box, offside etc.

Everyone on numerous media feeds are still debating whether they were penalties or not. That in itself says it won’t work.

[John Smith]

Also, an acceptance that VAR isn't going to be 100% accurate

decide what the level of improvement ('correct' decisions) makes up for the negatives

and whilst I'm at it, Alan Shearer is as fick as fcuk!

Oh yeah, there were some former player pundit berks pointing to VAR not proving conclusive on, Murray's goal being handball or not, of course not everything will be conclusive you morons, you don't have a perfect 3D scan of the entire incident from multiple angles you can run through a computer AI. Even if it was, one of you muppets would still claim it was wrong because you don't know the laws. It's a bloody improvement though isn't it.

If it's not going to prove conclusive then why have it? It's just the same as having a referee. I agree the cultural change needs to happen with more respect to the ref, especially from pundits, but this can only happen by going by the decision he thinks is right.

[Winston Biscuit]

Alan Shearer spot on last night. VAR should only be used for matter of fact. Ball in and out of play. Inside box, outside box, offside etc

so if the ball may or may not have gone out for a throw on we go to a minutes delay on the VAR?? that^ sounds like way too many situations to want to use it in, you would end up with so many stoppages it would spoil the spectacle (if football is that anymore)

[Sanguine]

People recoil at the concept of following rugby's lead, but TMO works perfectly. Essentially the TMO operates first independently of the referee, so when a decision is made, TMO might say 'ref, you should have a look at this again, I think his foot went out of play'. Second, TMO acts as an assistant if a referee wants to check something - 'I don't know if his foot went out of play'.

TMO is used once or twice a game as I recall. How is that 'stopping the flow' of anything? It will take some time for VAR to bed in, but evidence from Italy is that it works.

As noted above, the time from Ineacho's shot hitting the net, and the referee awarding the goal by VAR was 67 seconds. That's not bad anyway in a game which sees two minutes lost because someone gets a bump on the shin, nevermind for a system in its infancy.

It drives me nuts that so many ex-pros...

a) don't know the rules of the game

On this, I don't know who the co-commentator was last night, but it makes my eye twitch to hear anyone (on analysing the Morata penalty shout) say 'he has a right to go down there.' If he wasn't tripped or pushed over, why the hell is he falling over? He threw himself to the ground because the Norwich defender put his arm on him.

[Hendo]

VAR should be used for black and white decisions only, not something that can be as subjective as 'contact' or 'intent' in deciding a penalty or foul. Was it a goal - yes or no. Offside - yes or no. Inside the box - yes or no.

It works well in NFL and cricket because it is used for clear cut decisions only.

[genome]

I thought the whole point of the system was to remove any doubt - it seems we're just stuck with a different version of what we already had, just instead of players hassling the ref for a minute, we all just wait around.

I'm OUT personally.

[Sanguine]

I thought the whole point of the system was to remove any doubt - it seems we're just stuck with a different version of what we already had, just instead of players hassling the ref for a minute, we all just wait around.

I'm OUT personally.

No, that isn't it's stated aim at all. The aim of the system is to improve the accuracy of decisions, which I think sits at around 96% already. It is for clear cut decisions. As I said, its use needs ironing out, but ultimately you will see it work to reverse obviously wrong decisions, not debatable ones.